Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)

ianswett <> Tue, 16 April 2019 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0CE1204ED for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 03:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJqUTJqOUft4 for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 03:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5BE1204EB for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 03:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=K52TFH+MHwyPZsoQL9Q9c2sFFgM=; b=V5PF8fPButmrpUtZ BewV87PC2icnEwLRLk4bou/FUJS3dgp/GBLfgj843edCbg817WQAMuanzJ1yuzxB R84xFkg76DQqqm1BoC7P7+qsYQhsSll98HOBdiYb7Qq8t4U/IX2i6HdWbbiO/yaL Bz7xAzQH08aRePj5SfHekFdOtXE=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0631p1iad2-8601-5CB5B163-1 2019-04-16 10:41:39.282480977 +0000 UTC m=+644949.246898630
Received: from (unknown []) by (SG) with ESMTP id IvOIfriYQy6q_r_YYwHtLQ for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:41:39.159 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249613A010A for <>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 03:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:41:39 +0000
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2620/review/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Clarify time threshold vs crypto timer (#2620)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cb5b16322d90_42483fdae18d45b85268b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak3QRhzC8QVAXl9QT0XrF+uMSgX26HdXyV4zEL T/ASJkBOEDsWMj8yqp3vyZk8fcde4iNf2zBjNbHJgn7Zb9o8Tn+zT9IGxHOr6rYtRYH1yUx0HgCYzb zeAWfduTUYGIkJLi7D7xVbhFOCySI/TTXB3QP27pR5sjz1cXpp0ToZ6E6Q==
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:41:42 -0000

ianswett commented on this pull request.

> @@ -537,8 +537,15 @@ and otherwise it MUST send an Initial packet in a UDP datagram of at least
 1200 bytes.
 The crypto retransmission timer is not set if the time threshold
-{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  When the crypto
-retransmission timer is active, the probe timer ({{pto}}) is not active.
+{{time-threshold}} loss detection timer is set.  The time threshold loss
+detection timer is expected to both expire earlier than the crypto
+retransmission timeout and be less likely to spuriously retransmit data.
+The Initial and Handshake packet number spaces typically have a small number
+of packets in them, so time threshold loss detection will typically declare
+packets lost before packet threshold.

Thanks, suggestion taken.  I think why you'd arm the loss-detection timer is non-obvious, so I thought more explanatory text was better than less, and I think the small number of packets argument is relevant.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: